school-based management: reconceptualizing to improve learning outcomes

24
This article was downloaded by: [Harvard Library] On: 05 October 2014, At: 09:06 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nses20 School-Based Management: Reconceptualizing to Improve Learning Outcomes Michael Fullan & Nancy Watson Published online: 09 Aug 2010. To cite this article: Michael Fullan & Nancy Watson (2000) School-Based Management: Reconceptualizing to Improve Learning Outcomes, School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 11:4, 453-473 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/sesi.11.4.453.3561 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub- licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

Upload: nancy

Post on 21-Feb-2017

213 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

This article was downloaded by: [Harvard Library]On: 05 October 2014, At: 09:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

School Effectiveness and SchoolImprovement: An InternationalJournal of Research, Policy andPracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nses20

School-Based Management:Reconceptualizing to ImproveLearning OutcomesMichael Fullan & Nancy WatsonPublished online: 09 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Michael Fullan & Nancy Watson (2000) School-Based Management:Reconceptualizing to Improve Learning Outcomes, School Effectiveness and SchoolImprovement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 11:4, 453-473

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/sesi.11.4.453.3561

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever causedarising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of theuse of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

06 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

School Effectiveness and School Improvement 0924-3453/00/1104-0453$15.002000, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 453–473 © Swets & Zeitlinger

School-Based Management:Reconceptualizing to Improve Learning Outcomes

Michael Fullan and Nancy WatsonOntario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto, Canada

ABSTRACT

This article examines educational decentralization efforts in both developed and develop-ing countries, guided by two questions: (1) under what conditions does school-basedmanagement (SBM) produce best results and (2) what are the roles and relationships ofthe school/community and of the region/center. The authors summarize, from recentliterature, reasons for the usual failure of SBM and identify the conditions under whichSBM works, noting school/community relations and external infrastructure as importantfactors. In looking at research from developing countries, the authors highlight similari-ties and differences compared to Western research, focusing on projects with promisingresults. Finally, the article draws strategic implications for establishing the kind of school-based developments that will positively affect learning outcomes.

INTRODUCTION

Educational decentralization is a worldwide phenomenon, but as a con-cept it hides more than it reveals. It often refers to the devolution ofsome authority to the local school and community level, but two largeproblems remain. First, in all cases, key aspects of authority are retainedat the regional and central level. In this sense, decentralization is a mis-nomer. Second, when decentralization does occur, it usually refers tostructural elements (such as site-based councils), thereby missing theday-to-day capacities and activities that would make it work for schoolimprovement.

What will move us forward, we believe, is to obtain a greater specificunderstanding of (a) under what conditions does school-based manage-

Correspondence: M. Fullan, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University ofToronto, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1V6. Tel.: +1 416 9236641.Fax: +1 416 9712293. E-mail: [email protected]

Manuscript submitted: February 25, 2000Accepted for publication: August 15, 2000

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

06 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

454 MICHAEL FULLAN AND NANCY WATSON

ment produce best results, and (b) what are the relative roles and relation-ships between the school/community and the region/center.

This review article pursues these questions in four sections. First, wereview briefly the literature from Western sources to identify why school-based management (SBM) usually fails. Second, we consider very recentliterature which unpacks the questions of SBM to identify the conditionsand processes under which SBM does work. Interestingly, these factorsinvolve both internal school/community conditions and external infra-structure components. Third, we take up recent research in developingcountries to identify the similarities and differences to the Western re-search. We especially focus in this third section on projects which areobtaining promising results. Fourth, we summarize the main strategic im-plications for establishing powerful school-based developments whichpositively affect learning outcomes.

THE FAILURE OF SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT

Six years ago we reviewed several empirical studies involving SBM, con-cluding that SBM, in its then present form, did not impact teaching andlearning (Fullan, 1993). We mention three of the more carefully conductedstudies here. For example, Taylor and Teddlie (1992) examined class-rooms in 33 schools in the United States – of these, 16 schools had estab-lished SBM programs as part of a new pilot project initiative, and 17schools served as a control group which had not adopted SBM. The 33schools were from the same district. Taylor and Teddlie did find thatteachers in this study did not alter their practice … increasing their partic-ipation in decision-making did not overcome norms of autonomy so thatteachers would feel empowered to collaborate with their colleagues (p.10).

Other evidence from classroom observation failed to indicate changesin classroom environment and student learning activities. Despite consid-erable rhetoric and what the authors saw as ‘a genuine desire to profes-sionalize teaching’, ‘the core mission of the school seemed ancillary to theSBM project’ (Taylor & Teddlie, 1992, p. 19). Again, substantive changein the pedagogy (teaching strategies and assessment), and in the way teach-ers worked together on instructional matters proved to be elusive. Thesefindings would not be as noteworthy, claim the authors, except for the factthat ‘the study occurred in a district recognized nationally as a leader inimplementing restructuring reforms’ (p. 16). Similarly, Hallinger, Mur-phy, and Hausman (1991) found that teachers and principals in their sam-ple were highly in favor of restructuring, but did not make connections

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

06 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

455RECONCEPTUALIZING TO IMPROVE LEARNING OUTCOMES

‘between new governance structures and the teaching-learning process’(p. 5).

Virtually identical findings arise in Weiss’ (1992) investigation ofshared decision-making (SDM) in 12 high schools in 11 states in the USA(half were selected because they had implemented SDM; the other halfwere run in a traditional principal-led manner). Weiss did find that teach-ers in SDM schools were more likely to mention involvement in the deci-sion-making process (i.e., composition of committees, procedures, etc.)but ‘schools with SDM did not pay more attention to issues of curriculumthan traditionally managed schools, and pedagogical issues and studentconcerns were low on the list for both sets of schools’ (p. 2).

The research since 1993, which focussed directly on SBM, reportsessentially the same results on a very thorough review of research.Leithwood and Menzies (1998) examined 83 empirical studies of school-based management. Building on Murphy and Beck (1995), Leithwoodand Menzies identify four types of SBM: administrative control (theprincipal is dominant); professional control (teachers are dominant);community control (parent/community dominates) and balanced control(parents and professional are equals). Of the 83 studies reviewed, 28were classified as administrative, 37 as professional, 33 as community,and 2 as balanced.

Leithwood and Menzies’ (1998) overall conclusion is that:

There is virtually no firm, research-based knowledge about the director indirect effects of SBM on students … the little research-basedevidence that does exist suggests that the effects on students are just aslikely to be negative as positive. There is an awesome gap between therhetoric and the reality of SBM’s contribution to student growth inlight of the widespread advocacy of SBM. (p. 34)

The above findings are not surprising, largely because SBM is an amor-phous umbrella concept which is treated as an end in itself. In order tounravel the role of SBM we must focus on the more basic questions of (a)What are we trying to accomplish, that is, To what end is SBM a means?,and (b) What are the pathways and associated conditions for pursuingthese more basic ends?

In other words, SBM has failed to live up to its promise because as ageneral strategy, SBM fails to specify and otherwise is unlikely ‘to triggerchanges in the chain of variables linking [SBM] to student learning’(Leithwood & Menzies, 1998, p. 340). We now turn to a more promisinganalysis of SBM.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

06 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

456 MICHAEL FULLAN AND NANCY WATSON

SBM RECONCEPTUALIZED

Coming at school development from another direction, those of us whohave studied ‘collaborative cultures’ or ‘professional learning communi-ties’ have shed more light on the conditions under which improvementoccurs. The clearest example is the combined work of Newmann andWehlage (1995) and Louis and Marks (1998). These authors examinedschool reform in a large survey sample of 800 schools, and a more fo-cussed set of case studies involving 24 schools.

Newmann and Wehlage (1995) found that some schools did dispropor-tionately well in affecting the performance of students (in mathematics,science and social studies). The essence of their findings is that the moresuccessful schools had teachers and administrators who (1) formed a pro-fessional learning community, that (2) focussed on student work (assess-ment), and (3) changed their instructional practice (pedagogy and supportfor learning in the classroom) accordingly in order to get better results.They did this on a continuous basis (see Figure 1).

As Louis and Marks (1998) put it:

Our findings suggest that the organization of teachers’ work, in waysthat promote professional community, has a positive relationship withthe organization of classrooms for learning and the academic perform-ance of students. Professional community among teachers proved to beassociated with both [effective] pedagogy and social support [in theclassroom] for achievement among students. (p. 558)

Figure 1. The nature of professional learning communities (Adapted from Newmann &Wehlage, 1995, and Louis & Kruse, 1995).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

06 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

457RECONCEPTUALIZING TO IMPROVE LEARNING OUTCOMES

Another powerful example is provided by Bryk, Thum, Easton, and Lup-pescu (1998) from their longitudinal study of the Chicago school reformover the past decade. They found that schools that made a differenceworked differently as professional communities of teachers discussed andacted on new ideas:

In schools making systemic changes, structures are established whichcreate opportunities for such interactions to occur. As teachers developa broader say in school decision making, they may also begin to exper-iment with new roles, including working collaboratively. This restruc-turing of teachers’ work signifies a broadening professional communi-ty where teachers feel more comfortable exchanging ideas, and where acollective sense of responsibility for student development is likely toemerge. These characteristics of systemic restructuring contrast withconventional school practice where teachers work more autonomously,and there may be little meaningful professional exchange among co-workers. (p. 128)

Our label for what is happening in these schools is ‘reculturing’ or ‘ca-pacity-building’ that is, this is a process of increasing the focus on coreinstructional goals, processes and outcomes by improving the capacityof teachers and others to work together on these matters (Fullan, 1999).These findings and analysis have advanced us considerably (but notcompletely as we shall see below). To know the inner workings of pro-fessional learning communities contributes great insights. For example,this has enabled us to recommend that teachers must become more ‘as-sessment literate’ (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998) Assessment literacy re-fers to the capacity of teachers – alone and together – (a) to examineand accurately understand student work and performance data, and cor-respondingly, (b) to develop classroom and school plans to alter condi-tions necessary to achieve better results. Schools, in fact, do better whenthey pay close attention to external standards and corresponding achieve-ment data.

There are two further components that must be added before we candraw more positive conclusions about reconceptualizing SBM. The first ofthese is that little has been said about the role of parents and communities.There is considerable evidence that engagement and rapport between thecommunity and the school enhanced learning of students, but that suchinvolvement, especially in disadvantaged schools is limited (Coleman,1998; Epstein, Coates, Salinas, Sanders, & Simon, 1997). Bryk et al.(1998), in the Chicago study found that successful schools, in addition to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

06 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

458 MICHAEL FULLAN AND NANCY WATSON

developing a professional community, also actively pursued ‘the engage-ment of parents and community resources’. These schools:

…maintain a sustained focus on strengthening the involvement of par-ents with the school and their children’s schooling. They also activelyseek to strengthen the ties with the local community and especiallythose resources that bear on the caring of children. As these personalinteractions expand and become institutionalized in the life of theschool, the quality of the relationships between local professionals andtheir community changes. Greater trust and mutual engagement beginsto characterize these encounters. In contrast, schools with unfocusedinitiatives may set more distinct boundaries between themselves andtheir neighborhoods. Extant problems in these relationships may not bedirectly addressed. The broader community resources that could assistimprovement efforts in the school are not tapped. These schools remainmore isolated from their students’ parents and their communities. (Bryket al., 1998, pp. 127–128)

As we shall see in the next section, school-based reform in developingcountries may more naturally encompass parent and community involve-ment as part of a seamless local development reform effort.

The second component left out up to this point involves the realizationthat SBM decidedly does not mean leaving decentralized schools andcommunities on their own. There is now growing evidence, most of itrecent, that SBM must also be addressed in terms of the external infra-structure likely to promote the kind of capacity-building we see happeningin successful projects.

Wohlstetter, Van Kirk, Robertson, & Mohrmar (1997) in addition toconfirming that successful SBM schools focus on instructional improve-ment through professional learning communities, found that the immedi-ate external infrastructure is essential to SBM development:

… the successful districts we studied were gradually introducing chang-es in the information, accountability and control systems to enableschools to become self-improving entities, better able to effectivelymanage themselves. They were also introducing change to the district-level organization to support and stimulate school-level improvement.(p. 54)

Similarly, Louis and Marks (1998) conclude that, while individual teacherperformance is critical and needs to be supported within the school,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

06 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

459RECONCEPTUALIZING TO IMPROVE LEARNING OUTCOMES

‘schools and teachers will need help from outside in learning new forms ofpedagogy and in how to assess the development of classroom qualities thatfoster learning’ (p. 561).

It is only recently that attention has been paid to the concept of theexternal infrastructure needed to support SBM. Bryk et al. (1998) havemade an excellent start on this component. Although they are referring tolocal districts, their formulation can be extrapolated to larger regional andstate entities. Bryk et al. argue that four elements of an external reforminfrastructure must be systemically incorporated:

• Maintain decentralization;• Provide for local capacity-building;• Establish rigorous external accountability;• Stimulate access to innovation.

The first element is to maintain and develop decentralization policies(such as SBM and local agency responsibilities). While this first aspectsays ‘trust decentralization’, the other three components, in effect say ‘butnot completely’ (because it will not happen on its own). The trick is not toabandon failed SBM, but to strengthen it. The second aspect, local capac-ity-building, does just that. Here the investment is in policies, training,professional development, ongoing support, etc., in order to develop thecapacity of schools and communities to pursue and sustain improvementat the local level within a national context of policies. These activitiesrange from training for school teams, local school councils, redesign ofinitial teacher education, and the panoply of new activities that will beneeded to prepare teachers, principals, parents, and so on to function asprofessional learning communities inside and outside the school.

Third, a rigorous external accountability system must be built into theinfrastructure. Schools do best when they pay close attention to standardsand performance. The external accountability system generates data andprocedures that make this more likely and more thorough. However, sucha system must be primarily (not exclusively, as we will see in a moment)based on a philosophy of capacity-building, that is, a philosophy of using‘assessment for learning’ and otherwise enabling educators to becomemore assessment literate. No external formal accountability system canhave an impact in the long run unless it has a capacity-building philoso-phy. While this is the foremost primary goal, the external accountabilitysystem must also have the responsibility to intervene in persistently failingsituations. Balancing accountability support and accountability interven-tion is obviously a tough call, but this is precisely how sophisticated theexternal infrastructure must become.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

06 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

460 MICHAEL FULLAN AND NANCY WATSON

Fourth, ideas are important; scientific breakthroughs about learning areon the rise; innovations are being attempted around the world. Therefore,the stimulation of innovation must be a strong feature of the infrastructure.Investments must be made in research, development, innovative networks,etc., so that the marketplace of educational ideas is constantly being stim-ulated. The external system must help schools and school districts accessideas, and through capacity-building, support the development of account-able professional communities.

We are now in a position to reconceptualize SBM for success. We havesaid that instead of thinking of SBM as an end in itself, let’s identify whatproduces better results, and then ask if SBM can contribute to this enter-prise. We have focussed on three key non-structural elements: (1) buildingprofessional learning communities; (2) developing the two-way seamlessrelationship between schools and their communities; and (3) establishingand extending infrastructures which contribute to (1) and (2), as well asserving as a framework for external accountability.

In brief, SBM is local capacity-building operating within an externalframework. While SBM has a structural element, it is culture that is theprimary agent of change, that is, a culture that focuses on that of continu-ous improvement. It is when SBM contributes to the local problem solvingand mobilization of effort by all stakeholders that it succeeds.

One final, and absolutely critical caution: There is a fatal flaw in theresearch. Even the best research on SBM identified factors and conditionsassociated with success, but it does not tell us how to establish thoseconditions when they do not exist. Put another way, research portrayssuccessful cases once they are ‘up and running’ (and in a very few caseshow they evolved), but it provides little insight on how to get there. Forexample, let us consider Beck and Murphy’s (1998) excellent article on‘Untangling the Variables’ in SBM. Beck and Murphy found that SBMworks when there is ‘a learning imperative’, ‘a community imperative’, ‘acapacity-building imperative’, and a ‘leadership imperative.’ Beck andMurphy (1998) argue that people at the local level ‘must feel a sense ofurgency about learning, community, capacity-building and leadership, andgarner the knowledge and skills to enable them to respond to these imper-atives’ (p. 383). SBM enabled schools to proceed more quickly and effec-tively when these imperatives were evident; it did not cause the conditionto happen. In other words, strategies must focus directly on capacity-building and other aspects of establishing a learning culture; new policiesand structures may be a necessary, but are not a sufficient step for reform.

In conclusion, we can now better conceptualize what is needed for SBMto be effective, and even be fairly precise about how it can work. (See also

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

06 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

461RECONCEPTUALIZING TO IMPROVE LEARNING OUTCOMES

the 10 strategic intentions in Caldwell & Spinks, 1998.) But, there is no sil-ver bullet or short cut to getting it to happen. Senge (1999) comments thatmost leadership-driven reforms have failed, even those advocating local de-velopment, because they fail to appreciate the conditions under which localcapacity can evolve. As he puts it, ‘Leaders instigating change are often likegardeners standing over their plants, importing them: “Grow! Try harder!You can do it!” No gardener tried to convince a plant to “want” to grow’ (p.8). To appreciate that SBM means developing professional learning com-munities, establishing new capacities across the school and community, anddeveloping broader infrastructures that stimulate and support local develop-ment in light of national goals, is a first step toward overcoming the pastfailures of most SBM efforts.

SBM IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

As we have seen, establishing effective SBM is difficult in Western coun-tries, even where there is often more of a tradition of local authority, andwhere more resources are available. In many developing countries wherethere is a legacy of hierarchical or top-down models of education manage-ment from colonial days, it represents a radical change. Not only do thosein power at central and middle levels of management have to give upcontrol, but also those at the school and community level have to bewilling and capable of operating in new ways. Further, new forms andresponsibilities with respect to accountability must shift to school levels,whereby accountability becomes outward to parents and local communi-ties as well as upward to regional or central authorities.

Clearly, the professional development or learning needed to make suchshifts is enormous. As Hanson (1997) observed:

Decentralization is not created by passing a law. Rather it must be builtby overcoming a series of challenges at the center and the periphery by,for example, changing long established behaviours and attitudes, de-veloping new skills, convincing people in the center who enjoy exercis-ing power to give it up, permitting and sometimes encouraging peopleto take creative risks, promoting and rewarding local initiatives, andmaintaining continuity with the decentralization reform even as gov-ernments change. (p. 14)

It is not surprising that there is not yet any overall evidence that SBM indeveloping countries is directly linked to improvements in the quality of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

06 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

462 MICHAEL FULLAN AND NANCY WATSON

learning. What is instructive, however, is to identify those cases that beginto specify the conditions under which decentralized reform strategies domake a difference. Thus, we have opted to review in more detail a fewwell-researched case studies that will inform us about the circumstancesunder which SBM can be more fully assessed. These studies come fromAfrica, Asia, and Latin America.

Anderson and Nderitu (1999) provide a thorough evaluation of theMombasa School Improvement Programme (MSIP) in Kenya. The Mom-basa SIP began in 1994 with a 5-year mandate. It involves a three-waypartnership among the Aga Khan group, the Municipality of Mombasa,and the Mombasa School District. There are 112 schools in the districtranging from urban to rural. Anderson and Nderitu (1999) state that ‘thedistrict had a history of poor education performance and a reputation oflow community involvement and support for primary education’ (p. 2).

The authors summarize the overall aim of the project as improving thequality of teaching and learning in primary schools:

Major strategic components of the project addressed in this evaluationinclude the provision of classroom-based inservice teacher training topromote the use of child centered teaching methods; efforts to strength-en the capacity of local Teacher Advisory Centers (TACs) to provideprofessional support for teachers; management training for headteach-ers and municipal education officials (e.g., inspectors, school advi-sors, TAC tutors); and the mobilization of parent involvement andfinancial support for education at the school level [through the facili-tation of a Community Development Officer]. (Anderson & Nderitu,1999, p. 1)

Anderson and Nderitu found that implementation of SIP has become wide-spread (since mid-1996), that there is evidence of impact on the work ofteachers and their relationships to students and community members, andthat while it is too early to assess the impact on student learning outcomes,most of the evidence is positive.

What is more helpful, given our reviews earlier in this article are thefindings about the conditions under which impact is achieved relative toeach of the constituency groups.

Six conclusions are drawn about teachers:1. Frequent individual professional assistance leads to new teaching

methods in practice.2. Some teachers implement ‘activities’ without obvious connections to

learning.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

06 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

463RECONCEPTUALIZING TO IMPROVE LEARNING OUTCOMES

3. Inquiry-oriented teaching and learning activities are the most difficultto master.

4. Teachers rarely involve students in activities that require them to ex-press or demonstrate their understanding of key concepts and proce-dures.

5. Most teachers demonstrate a novice understanding of small grouplearning methods.

6. Teacher access to continuous external and classroom-based profes-sional development and material support is needed to enable teachermastery of activity-based child centered teaching methods. TeacherAdvisory Centers (TAC) have been crucial in this regard.

Changes in headteacher management include:1. Reflective practice;2. School development planning and setting priorities;3. Participatory management;4. Financial management;5. Personnel management.

The training and support of headteachers is a crucial component of decen-tralized strategies everywhere. Thus, Anderson and Nderitu’s (1999) fol-lowing finding is especially revealing:

The most significant impact of MSIP on headteachers has less to dowith management training, than with the creation through MSIP of apowerful infrastructure of teacher development and school improve-ment. The new infrastructure enables headteachers to put into practicemany of the ideas and methods introduced to them through manage-ment training.

Ready access to ongoing management training follow-up assistanceand collegial networking is a necessary component of any system-wideprogram of teacher development and school improvement. (p. 50)

Similarly, the findings about the mobilization of parents and communityare instructive:

The key strategy for developing effective parent and community partic-ipation was to employ a Community Development Officer (CDO) towork with PTAs, community leaders, school personnel, and municipalagencies.

The MSIP parent/community involvement strategy includes train-ing for education personnel on how to work effectively with parents

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

06 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

464 MICHAEL FULLAN AND NANCY WATSON

and communities, as well as intervention with parents at the school andTeacher Advisory Centers, including parent education.

There is a continuing need for persons with expertise in the areas ofparent/community involvement to assist with initial mobilization activ-ities and with institutionalization and further development whereproject inputs have already taken hold. (p. 50)

A host of obstacles, difficulties and details at the level of implementationof MSIP must be taken into account, but the main findings are consistentwith (and add to, as we shall conclude later) what we know to be necessaryfor effective school-based improvement.

Another interesting initiative is the Bodh Shiksha Samiti project(Chetna, 1995). Working in the slums of Jaipur, India, the Bodh projectuses a child-based philosophy of education linked to an integrated com-munity schools strategy. The child, the teacher and the community jointogether in a participatory endeavor to provide space (including the use ofopen areas) for learning, to establish meetings to deliberate on absentee-ism and suggest remedies, and to assist teachers in building learning activ-ities. Every Bodh teacher, in all programmes, makes daily visits to thecommunity and holds meetings with family members.

After initial success in informal settings, the Government of Rajasthanhas become a partner to adopt and implement the Bodh approach for a 5-year period (which began in 1994) in 10 schools run by the state. The strate-gy to implement the ‘Adoption Programme’ is consistent with the observa-tions we have been making throughout this article. The programme is beingimplemented ‘through a sustained and continuous process of introducingBodh’s conclusion and teaching methods to government school teachers,and assisting them to continue these as part of their own practice.’ (Chetna,1995, p. 13) The process of implementation involves a built-in monitoringsystem of checklists and reports on progress, and a corresponding networkof meetings in which ‘teachers meet regularly for fortnightly workshops,where they share their experiences in greater detail, using their diaries andplanning … for the next fortnight’s teaching-learning activities’ (p. 19).

The Chetna evaluation was only 2 years into the 5-year period. Amonginitial difficulties, according to the Bodh researchers are:• Convincing teachers to teach and relate to children differently (what we

called earlier, reculturing teaching and learning);• Keeping momentum going among key decision-makers, such as school

heads, in light of high turnover rates;• Getting teachers and heads to accept responsibility for community in-

volvement.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

06 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

465RECONCEPTUALIZING TO IMPROVE LEARNING OUTCOMES

Despite these growing pains, the researchers report the following specificachievements:• A comparative assessment, based on the findings of benchmark studies

in the government schools under the programme, has established thatthe level of children’s cognition attained through these innovative meth-ods is much higher than those of schools not involved in the programme.

• The programme has brought the government teachers out of systematicrigidity and there is perceptible qualitative improvement in classroomculture, teacher-student relationships and parental involvement in schoolactivities.

• There is a general appreciation of the programme and a growing de-mand for its expansion. (Chetna, 1995, p. 15)

The critical issue in expanding the programme beyond the initial highlycommitted core group involves training and support, which the research-ers refer to as ‘capacity-building’:

The teacher training programme seeks to inculcate greater profession-alism in the teachers in order to evolve in them an appropriate visionand approach to children’s education. The emphasis is on exploringways and means of community level knowledge, material and resourc-es for attaining a sense of relevance in education and developing asense of ownership in the community. The training needs to be consist-ent with pedagogic innovation, evolve a system of learning-teaching,working from and grounded in the grass-roots level. (Chetna, 1995,p. 17)

The Bodh programme is small scale, and is moving increasingly into abroader dissemination phase. For the immediate future, the goals are (1) tostrengthen the quality of the model and its support system, and (2) play therole of catalyst for improved education on a wider level.

A third, well-documented study, comes from the Roads to Success(RTS) report in rural Pakistan. Farah (1996, 1997) has conducted an in-depth evaluation of school improvement in 32 schools in four provinces.Four indicators of success were used: enrolment, attendance, repetitionrate, and retention – data were not available on student performance. Thefindings are now familiar:• Critical causal factors in the process of positive school change include a

combination of a competent headteacher (and teachers) and a support-ive community;

• Heads and teachers can form a cluster of schools to help each other;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

06 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

466 MICHAEL FULLAN AND NANCY WATSON

• Parents/communities support schools through:– involvement with their own children’s learning;– involvement through securing facilities and financial support for the

school;– involvement through participation in school activities. (Farah, 1997,

p. 4)

Farah (1997) provides an interesting discussion on school governance anddecision-making. We have already said that participation in governance isnot necessarily related to improvement in learning. It is only when the ma-jority of teachers engage the majority of parents that success is possible on awide scale. Thus, the role of school or community councils is not an end initself, but a possible accompaniment to creating ownership in the communi-ty. The evaluation of Phase 1 of RTS resulted in a recommendation to estab-lish Village Education Committees (VECs) to encourage parents/communi-ty involvement and to offer a mechanism for participation in governance.

Farah (1997) lists a number of cautions in establishing VECs and corre-sponding recommendations – a list incidentally not unfamiliar to those whohave evaluated the introduction and implementation of Chicago’s LocalSchool Councils over the past decade (Bryk et al., 1998). Using focusgroups with different stakeholders, Farah (1997) identifies initial problems:• Conflicting perceptions and tensions with respect to VEC’s role;• Lack of ownership and non-involvement by local education officers,

some teachers, some parents;• Conflict of power and factionalism;• Lack of experience in working through committees. (p. 8)

Farah concludes that VECs could be very valuable, but suggests that theymust be developed carefully including:• Close monitoring and support of VECs, especially at the initial period

of their formation;• Identify and share examples of successful VECs;• Training, support and reward headteachers for their efforts to involve

the community;• Address the problem of political interference and patronage which ex-

ists at the village and district levels;• Increase the sense of local responsibility (Most policy is seen as initiat-

ed from the top with little sense of accountability at the local level);• Better training and support for teachers – both pre-service and inserv-

ice – are currently considered to be weak with respect to methods andcontent. (p. 8)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

06 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

467RECONCEPTUALIZING TO IMPROVE LEARNING OUTCOMES

The problems, in other words, are enormous. As Farah (1997) concludes,the implementation of VECs requires ‘not only the formation of a struc-ture but also the development of a culture of community participation’ (p.25).

Other studies of SBM and school improvement provide similar conclu-sions. For example, the Escuela Neuva (EN) project in Latin America is acarefully designed low-cost educational model that has been able to im-prove the quality of rural basic education in Columbia (Schiefelbein,1991). The support system is organized into four sets of factors:1. A demonstration school showing that the model works;2. At least five specific low-cost materials;3. A well defined training package for changing teachers’ attitudes;4. A school management style (based on learning materials, teacher

guides, physical arrangements for learning corners and the like.(Schiefelbein, 1991, p. 20)

EN attempts to maximize student participation in learning and builds therelationship between the school and the community with easy-to-do activ-ities. Unlike earlier programs, EN has been now attempted on a massivescale in over 20,000 schools using carefully streamlined implementationguidelines. While it is difficult to assess the quality and impact of imple-mentation on such a scale, the project has demonstrated that good qualityis feasible on a large scale – in spite of limited resources.

Shaeffer and Govinda (n.d.) propose a framework for school manage-ment after reviewing case studies from Bangladesh, Brazil, Cambodia,Chile, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Peru, South Africa, and Thailand.Shaeffer and Govinda identify five assumptions of a shift in focus toschool level development:• System-wide reforms, planned at and implemented from the top of the

system, often leave the core processes of teaching and learning in indi-vidual schools virtually untouched;

• Schools need frequent and consistent support;• Each school operates in a unique context and with unique growth poten-

tial;• The education system must develop a more effective system for ensur-

ing greater accountability for what it does;• Schools are playing an increasingly critical role in an increasingly com-

plicated development process. (pp. 1–2)

Shaeffer and Govinda conclude with four lessons from the case experienc-es:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

06 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

468 MICHAEL FULLAN AND NANCY WATSON

• Schools need to be seen and treated as unique units of planning, deci-sion-making, and management;

• School staff – teachers and headteachers – have to be treated as individ-uals interested in, and capable of, developing their schools (with train-ing and assistance);

• Involvement of more partners in support of the school is useful butrequires changes in how schools are managed;

• Community-school partnerships do not easily happen by themselves –they must be planned for and trained for. (pp. 16–17)

Finally, a very recent review by Farrell (1999) provides an excellent sum-mary of ‘common features’ associated with some successes:• Child-centered rather than teacher-driven pedagogy;• Active rather than passive learning;• Multi-graded classrooms with continuous progress learning;• Combination of fully trained teachers, partially trained teachers and

community resources;• People – parents and other community members are heavily involved in

the learning of the children, and in the management of the school;• Peer tutoring – older and/or faster-learning children assist and ‘teach’

younger and/or slow-learning children;• Carefully developed self-guided learning materials, which children,

along or in small groups, can work through themselves, at their ownpace, with help from other students and the teacher(s) as necessary —the children are responsible for their own learning;

• Teacher and student-constructed learning materials;• Active student involvement in the governance and management of the

school;• Use of radio, correspondence lesson materials, in some cases television,

in a few cases computers;• On-going and regular in-service training and peer mentoring for teach-

ers;• On-going monitoring/evaluation/feedback systems allowing the ‘sys-

tem’ to learn from its own experience, with constant modification of/experimentation with the methodology;

• Free flows of children and adults between the school and the communi-ty;

• Community involvement includes attention to the nutrition and healthneeds of young children long before they reach school age;

• Locally adapted changes in the cycle of the school day or the schoolyear;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

06 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

469RECONCEPTUALIZING TO IMPROVE LEARNING OUTCOMES

• The focus of the school is much less on ‘teaching’ and much more on‘learning’. (pp. 13-14)

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS

Are the factors related to SBM in developing countries dissimilar to thosefound in research in Western countries? Yes and no. The main types offactors and strategies are similar:• New teaching and learning methods;• Developing learning relations among teachers inside and outside the

school;• Mobilizing and supporting parents and communities to play an active

role;• Establishing external structures to train and support headteacher, teach-

ers and others;• Redefining accountability so that teachers and heads become more ‘as-

sessment literate’ and assessment becomes more transparent.

There are differences in emphasis in reform efforts in developing coun-tries, some of them advantageous:• There is a greater degree of cultural shift and redistribution of power

toward the school level;• The capacity to play new roles is less well developed, especially in

leaders (heads, local district leaders) and in teachers who could, in turn,advocate and support others;

• The external infrastructure to support SBM is less well developed;• Because of limited resources, strategies must rely more on human labor

such as involving parents and communities, something the West has notbeen good at;

• Good learning materials have a greater impact because they have previ-ously been limited or non-existent.

In terms of strategic implications, we now know that SBM is not just astructural change; it is a cultural change. We know that SBM does notmean leaving local development on its own; in fact, to work, SBM musthave vibrant two-way interaction among local, regional and national per-sonnel. Based on our review, we recommend four sets of strategies toguide the further development of SBM.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

06 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

470 MICHAEL FULLAN AND NANCY WATSON

1. Review and strengthen policies aimed at decentralizationPolicies must explicitly stress local responsibilities and authority, but mustdo so by placing it in the context of external relationships that will benecessary for ongoing development and review.

2. Review and build an infrastructure or sets of agencies whose mainrole is to stimulate and support local capacity at the school andcommunity levels

We saw many examples in the review such as Mombasa’s Teacher Advi-sory Centers and Community Development Officers, and Pakistan’s Vil-lage Education Committees. The main point is to assess the possibilities,to conceptualize what is needed, and to begin strengthening or establish-ing new entities in the local and regional areas.

3. Establish a data-gathering system aimed at developing ‘assess-ment literacy’ on the part of local and regional groups

This strategy focuses on ‘accountability’, but does so in a way that isdesigned to develop new habits and inquiry which enable people to trackand improve performance relative to student learning, participation andcapacity of different roles and groups, obstacles encountered, problem-solving strategies and the like.

4. Be simultaneously persistent and patientIf we know anything from the last quarter of a century’s study of thechange process, it is that there is no ready-made model of change that willprovide a shortcut to success (Fullan, 1999). To be successful, reformrequires local ownership. You cannot legislate ownership. It must be de-veloped in each context which has its own unique history. Local owner-ship, however, can and must be stimulated and supported from the outside.There is, as we have seen in the review, a growing knowledge base aboutwhat kinds of strategies will be most productive in this inside-out/outside-in development.

It is necessary then, to be persistent and practice, to conceptualize anddesign strategies based on the knowledge base about reform processes, totrust the process, and to look for and consolidate promising patterns asthey arise in the course of monitoring reform efforts.

The key issue remains about how to move forward in countries withouta tradition of local democracy. A recent series of articles on local devel-opment in developing countries in the Toronto Globe & Mail is instruc-tive. An article by Stackhouse (1999) describes how one village in Bi-haripur, India was negatively affected after receiving a grant to establish a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

06 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

471RECONCEPTUALIZING TO IMPROVE LEARNING OUTCOMES

school with expectations of strong community-based involvement. Afterreceiving the grant, the village was required to form a committee of 23members to decide on the school site. As the author reports: ‘Whatfollowed was the steady disintegration of a community’ as local factionsdisagreed and divisiveness and violence escalated (pp. D1, D4).

SBM then is clearly not just a structural reform, or not even just aneducational reform. There are two more basic elements required. First,within the educational system, the strategy must focus on the preparationand support of trained teachers, the fostering of leaders and supervisors,and the availability of books and learning materials. It may be necessaryto rely heavily on learning materials as the capacity of teachers and super-visors is built up. To do this first task, an infrastructure must also beestablished which in turn fosters the development of educators and accessto material.

Second, parent and community involvement is both a means to bettereducation, and more basically, a component of local development. In thissense, the goal is not school development, but social change towards great-er equity and economic productivity.

In conclusion, SBM is not an end in itself; not a short-term solution; notdecentralization. Rather, SBM is a means of altering the capacity of theschool and community to make improvements; it is something that willrequire training, support and other aspects of capacity-building over aperiod of time; and it is local improvement in the context of natural goalsand accountability. The case studies referred to above in Section 3 indi-cate that progress can be made, as they provide lessons for the do’s anddon’ts of going about large-scale reform projects. The advice is to incor-porate these lessons into new design strategies, monitor and process learn-ing as the strategies unfold, be persistent, and be patient. Finally, inmoving toward SBM, it might be best initially to define the strategy asworking to establish the preconditions (e.g., capacity of teachers, princi-pals and community members and corresponding infrastructure support)for SBM to work.

We are at a stage where large-scale reform aspirations of a truly deepnature are being pursued. Never before has there been such an internation-al push in this direction. Never before has the knowledge base been sostrong and accumulating. Never before have the complexities and chal-lenges been so evident. The next decade represents a significant opportu-nity to expand the scope of reform efforts while at the same time achievinggreater depth of change, which in turn means greater capacity for reformin subsequent decades.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

06 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

472 MICHAEL FULLAN AND NANCY WATSON

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Final paper prepared for The World Bank:“Improving Learning Outcomes in the Carib-bean”

REFERENCES

Anderson, S., & Nderitu S. (1999). Evaluation of Mombasa School Improvement Pro-gramme. Geneva: Aga Khan Foundation.

Beck, L., & Murphy, J. (1998). Site-based management and school success: Untangling thevariables. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9, 358–385.

Bryk, T., Thum, Y., Easton, J., & Luppescu, S. (1998). Charting Chicago school reform.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Caldwell, B., & Spinks, J. (1998). Beyond the self managing school. London: FalmerPress.

Chetna, A. (1995). Bodh Shiksha Samiti. Rajasthan: India.Coleman, P. (1998). Parent, student and teacher collaboration: The power of three. Thou-

sand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Epstein, J., Coates, L., Salinas, K., Sanders, M., & Simon, B. (1997). School, family and

community partnership: Your handbook for action. Thousand Oaks, CA: CorwinPress.

Farah, I. (1996). Roads to success, 1. Karachi: Institute for Educational Development.Farah, I. (1997). Roads to success, 2. Karachi: Institute for Educational Development.Farrell, J. (1999). Improving educational quality in Pakistan and Nepal. Toronto: Ontario

Institute for Studies in Education.Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces. London: Falmer Press.Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. London: Falmer Press.Hallinger, P., Murphy, J., & Hausman, C. (1991). Conceptualizing school restructuring:

Principals’ and teachers’ perceptions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting ofthe American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Hanson, M. (1997). Educational decentralization: Issues and challenges. Santiago, Chile:Program to Promote Educational Reform.

Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (1998). What’s worth fighting for out there? New York:Teachers College Press.

Leithwood, K., & Menzies, T. (1998). Forms and effects of school-based management: Areview. Educational Policy,12(3), 325–346.

Louis, K., & Marks, H. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom? Ameri-can Journal of Education, 106, 532–596.

Murphy, J., & Beck L. (1995). School-based management as school reform. ThousandOaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Newmann F., & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful school restructuring. Madison, WI: Centeron Organization and Restructuring of Schools.

Schiefelbein, E. (1991). In search of the school of the 21st century. Santiago: UNESCOand UNICEF Regional Officers in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Shaeffer, S., & Govinda, R. (n.d.) Innovations in School-Based Management. New York:UNICEF.

Senge, P. (1999). The dance of change. New York: Doubleday.Stackhouse, J. (1999, July 31). Class Warfare. Toronto Globe & Mail, pp. D1, D4.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

06 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

473RECONCEPTUALIZING TO IMPROVE LEARNING OUTCOMES

Taylor, D., & Teddlie, C. (1992). Restructuring and the classroom: A view from a reformdistrict. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, San Francisco, CA.

Wohlstetter, P., Van Kirk, A., Robertson, P., & Mohrmar, S. (1997). Successful School-Based Management. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Weiss, C. (1992). Shared decision making about what? A comparison of schools with andwithout teacher participation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Ameri-can Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

06 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

06 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014